> >exegesis Digest Thu, 31 Oct 2002 Volume: 07 Issue: 094
> >
> >In This Issue:
> >#1: From: Patrice Guinard
> >Subject: [e] Re: to Dennis & Dale, Exegesis Digests V7 #86, #88, #91
> >#2: From: "Alexandre"
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #85
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:29:12 +0100
> >From: Patrice Guinard
> >Subject: [e] Re: to Dennis & Dale, Exegesis Digests V7 #86, #88, #91 etc
> >
> >A short response to some of the mails recently posted here:
> >
> >After I'd written:
> >>An impressional has no meaning at all: it's just like a sort of inner
> >>"sensation" if you like.
> >
> >Dennis replied:
> >
> >>Hmm. You make it seem trivial and I'm reluctant to accept that it is!
If
> >>you are suggesting it is a mere biological reflex, I would argue that
> >>temporal gearing is still incorporated into that function (as the basic
> >>context).
> >
> >Not a reflex, because the stars are in you (Paracelsian's theory). An
> >impressional is a tiny inner voice. It's like a musical note, a E or a G.
The
> >musician can recognize the E or the G, in the same manner that the
astrologer
> >can perceive Venus or Saturn.
> >Also: a chart is a manner of RITORNELLO. Nothing else. You could add all
the
> >meaning you want: but this is not to be musician.
> >
> >Astrologers usually do the worse literature that it could be: they only
decode
> >existing events or situations, & add to them these instruments they have
learned
> >to use (planets, zodiacal signs etc...) Generally they are not able to
think and
> >see other thing that it's thought and seen by others. So it's not a
knowledge:
> >rather more a KNO-LEDGE (it was not a typo). A real knowledge ought to do
the
> >demonstration to other people, that a sense, that a real information,
could be
> >provided by astrology.
> >
> >What interesting about an event (if you like) or about a person, are the
> >astrologers saying??? Are the astrologers able to say something
interesting
> >about whatever thing you could choose? When an astrologer is interpreting
the
> >chart of Balzac for instance, is he, is she!, able to say smth interesting
about
> >Balzac ???
> >
> >
> >>Patrice: >The planetary rhythms have become endogenous. More they compel
the
> >>psychic
> >>>system to organize itself "astrologically", ie as planetary forces
> >>>(energy),
> >>>zodiacal forms (structure)... This is a meaning of "matrix". And this
is
> >>>the PARACELSIAN theory.
> >
> >>Dennis:
> >>Have you anywhere documented that Paracelsus said this, or do you merely
> >>think that's what he may have meant? [Excuse me being the devil's
> >>advocate!] I note that other meanings of `matrix' are implied above.
Care
> >>to expand on that?
> >
> >My lecture of Paracelsus. See his Astronomia Magna (1538). Some details
about
> >could be read in the different parts of my doctoral thesis (1993). I have
to do
> >a synthesis on this important thinker. But every thing with time.
> >
> >
> >>Dennis: Also, I should issue a caution. Rudhyar made a strong case that
the
> >>psyche
> >>models the cosmos, and the natal horoscope is the structure of the
psyche.
> >>I have tended to follow him in this, and your view above seems to
concur.
> >>However I have spent the past few years extending my comprehension of
> >>psychology by reading the latest books by a range of neuroscientists and
> >>evolutionary psychologists. It has become clear to me that the
structure of
> >>the psyche cannot be merely a microcosm of the solar system, as it
contains
> >>major structural & functional components that have no obvious
correspondence
> >>to that model.
> >
> >Of course! If neuroscientists had found such correspondences, some of them
would
> >pay some attention to astrology!
> >
> >
> >>Dennis: I still am confident that some operational subcomponent of
> >>the psyche is a microcosm of the solar system, but it now seems to me
that
> >>it must be a reductionist error to assume the psyche as a whole is
merely
> >>that.
> >
> >I agree. & I've not said that this microcosm is ALL the psyche.
> >
> >
> >________________
> >________________
> >
> >Dale Huckeby wrote:
> >
> >>Patrice: >The planetary rhythms have become endogenous. More they
compel the
> >>psychic
> >>>system to organize itself "astrologically", ie as planetary forces
(energy),
> >>
> >>>zodiacal forms (structure)... This is a meaning of "matrix". And this
is
> >>>the PARACELSIAN theory.
> >>
> >>Dale: This is the only (minor) point on which we differ. I don't think
the
> >>planets have compelled this organization, rather that life has _used_
the
> >>planets to organize itself.
> >
> >It seems to me that astrology needs this hypothesis -- of Matrix, the most
> >difficult to accept, I agree, & a speculative one. Planetary periodicities
> >reflected as internal clocks or "temporal templates" are not sufficient.
It's
> >the only way to "justify" astrological signs. We could understand rather
easily
> >how planetary rhythms could be integrated in the temporal organization of
the
> >psychic apparatus, but what about zodiacal signs?
> >
> >
> >Dale posted recently (#91) some interesting observations.
> >
> >I haven't ceased to repeat that for me, the explanation of the
astrological fact
> >by Jungian synchronicity is no explanation at all, not even
"characteristic of
> >the traditional paradigm" to take Dale's expression, but just the usual
lazy way
> >of today's astrology. And this symbolistic/post-event connection that
could be
> >read in all the astrological magazines, in the conferences, seems to me to
be no
> >more than an indigestible soup.
> >
> >
> >>When a MOMENT is examined it's because we already know what the event
> >>is and when it happened, otherwise we wouldn't know which moment to
examine.
> >
> >
> >This is the point. AFTER the event, the chart is CALCULATED, & a partial
> >configuration of this chart is CHOSEN to match the event. I don't see
another
> >thing than an intellectual game, either of the "left" or "right" brain.
> >
> >Another point would be / is: astrology is definitely not event-oriented.
The
> >stars don't care what the human activities are or aren't, specially with
an
> >"actuality" organized as a spectacle. So the question remains: What to do
with
> >astrology?
> >
> >
> >________________
> >________________
> >
> >Dennis wrote recently (#93)
> >
> >>Poor interpretation
> >>comes from inadequate recognition of the keywords that characterise the
> >>archetypes, as well as failure to grasp the technique of using the
language
> >>to synthesise component meanings into an overall picture of the
situation.
> >
> >I don't recognize the existence of these supposed keywords! A rather poor
> >literature relating to these "keywords" has been made available recently
in some
> >books. The problem is that: "it clearly doesn't work".
> >
> >Did you asked yourself, Dennis, why POOR INTERPRETATION (on this point, we
> >agree!!) & ALL INTERPRETERS (I would add) fail to "recognize" (as you say)
&
> >also to "grasp" the good technique??
> >Do you know a good interpreter who doesn't fail? Just one: give me a name!
> >
> >Or do you suppose that there is a knowledge in these
> >archetypes/symbols/keywords, but that no one is able to use this
knowledge?
> >
> >-- Or it is your conception of implicated meaning in the astrological
operators
> >who is not adequate??
> >
> >
> >Have a look at the conclusive words of my text on Planets
> >http://cura.free.fr/20planen.html > >
> >---------------------
> >The planets are put into the state of psychic energy: they pre-structure
the
> >immediate data of consciousness. Each planetary operator establishes a
specific
> >caesura of the same continuum and orients a particular perspective of
one's
> >perception of reality. Given a "uniform" reality, the Saturnian and the
Solar do
> >not see the same object, because they are fitted with different lenses.
> >Moreover, the "object" is not necessarily a given: it is the Saturnian or
the
> >Solar who calls forth its own object, who causes it to exist in its own
> >consciousness, who creates it, because its consciousness discriminates
with the
> >aid of this "planetary lens a certain texture of reality to which it is
> >sensitized. Of course education, culture and experience contribute to
> >desensitization and to a pragmatic management of perception, but the
planetary
> >operators nonetheless continue to innervate consciousness. The planets are
the
> >elements that incite psychic functions. The physical signal is
imperceptibly
> >integrated into consciousness. The planetary operator is an internal
force, an
> >impressional, i.e. a daemon that presses from within.
> >------------------------
> >
> >The astrological planet (for human consciousness) is no other thing than a
> >manner to perceive the REAL. Nothing else.
> >
> >For that I say that astrology is not psychology-oriented, nor
event-oriented.
> >
> >
> >Patrice
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >From: "Alexandre"
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #85
> >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:12:09 -0200
> >
> >Hi Patrice,
> >
> >When you state:
> >
> >>The only astrological reality & fact are these endogenous impressionals,
&
> >they
> >>organized themselves, in "patterns", thanks to the evolution of human
> >psychism &
> >>its adaptation to the planetary rhythms.
> >>The planetary rhythms have become endogenous. More they compel the
psychic
> >>system to organize itself "astrologically", ie as planetary forces
> >(energy),
> >>zodiacal forms (structure)... This is a meaning of "matrix". And this is
> >the
> >>PARACELSIAN theory.
> >
> >I have to confess , the most intriguing in your theory is the hole of the
> >impressionals, and seems , to me, that every time we start to discuss it
we
> >end trying to define the meaning of archetype. In other words , we reach
> >nowhere.
> >
> >Well, maybe in a different approach we can go further in my understanding
> >about the impressionals, do you have an example where their action or
their
> >presence are unquestionable? I'm thinking about a very simple fact, not a
> >complex one, something that can be self evident, like the adaptation of
the
> >plants to the changes of the environment.
> >
> >Another issue is about the eight houses, does we have eight basic types of
> >impressionals? I'm saying that, because, IMO, we must encounter two things
> >one from earth and other from sky at the same time and with a congruent
> >necessity (synchronicity ?), to shape something new - The impressional.
If
> >so, maybe you could explain this basic types. This idea come from the
Ogdoad
> >Egyptians, maybe they are the first types of things creates by an
> >impressional.
> >
> >Anyway I'm very confused and any clarification you could give will be
nice.
> >
> >Best to you,
> >
> >Alexandre
> >
> >Ps : Dennis wrote:
> >
> >"I'm a heretic when they
> >find I don't use rulerships, exaltations, the 7 rays, midpoints, solstice
> >points, asteroids, imaginary planets, etc etc etc."
> >
> >snip
> >
> >"more precisely, a compelling correspondence between the result of their
> >application of
> >astrological reasoning and the evident nature of the real life object of
> >their analysis."
> >
> >
> >In my opinion, I think all that kind of extras are necessary to make a
point
> >in Astrology, because we try to explain a complex event -- at lest three
> >points of congruence -- Sky - Earth - Impressional (?) , with only one
kind
> >of science, Astrology, this brings the necessity to carry strange elements
> >and , at the end, mix then with the traditional one's. As I have been
> >proposing, I think we need three "sciences" to explain it , working
> >together , in an harmonious, balanced and cleaver way (quality) : so I
made
> >the hypothesis of use :
> >
> >Sky - Astrology - Seven Planets and Sings Constellations
> >Earth - Sacred Geometry - The eight Domus inside the Octahedron
> >Impressional (?)- Tarot - but bare Arcanum ( not archetypes) ( common
human
> >symbols)
> >
> >Just an idea for further comments.
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >End of exegesis Digest V7 #94
> >*****************************
> >|| http://exegesis.dyndns.org/exegesis/exegesis.html > >|| Moderator: exegesis-owner
> >|| To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe exegesis'
> >|| as subject to lists
> >